DCT

2:25-cv-10745

Machiningcloud Inc v. Kennametal Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:

  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-10745, C.D. Cal., 12/12/2025

  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Kennametal conducts business in the district, has marketed and sold patented technology to customers in the district, and previously filed patent infringement claims against Plaintiff in the same district.

  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendant's patent related to a digital platform for industrial tool selection is invalid and incorrectly lists its inventors, alleging the underlying technology was misappropriated from Plaintiff during a prior business relationship.

  • Technical Context: The technology involves integrated, computer-based platforms that replace traditional paper catalogs for selecting, configuring, and managing complex industrial machining tools, a critical function in modern manufacturing.

  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this action for declaratory judgment arises from a broader dispute between the parties. A separate, pending case (2:25-cv-02158) involves allegations by Kennametal that MachiningCloud infringes two related patents ('387 and '322 Patents). MachiningCloud alleges that the newly issued patent-in-suit in this case, the '675 Patent, covers technology it developed for Kennametal under a 2011 agreement and was improperly patented by Kennametal. Kennametal's alleged refusal to provide a covenant not to sue on the '675 Patent forms the stated basis for the current declaratory judgment action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-05-26 MachiningCloud and Kennametal enter into development agreement.
2021-12-17 Priority date for the ’675 Patent (based on provisional filing).
2022-06-03 Application for the ’675 Patent filed.
2025-02-04 MachiningCloud files contract and trade secret action against Kennametal.
2025-04-30 Kennametal asserts patent infringement claims ('387/'322 Patents).
2025-09-30 U.S. Patent No. 12,430,675 issues.
2025-12-12 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed.

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,430,675 - "COMPUTER-BASED PLATFORM FOR DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING INDUSTRIAL TOOL SOLUTIONS (DCX PLATFORM)"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,430,675, "COMPUTER-BASED PLATFORM FOR DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING INDUSTRIAL TOOL SOLUTIONS (DCX PLATFORM)," issued September 30, 2025 (the "’675 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the significant challenge users face when trying to select and configure an optimal industrial tool assembly for a specific machining operation. This process is complex due to the vast number of available tools, holders, and intermediary components, and the need to consider their interaction with specific machines and workpiece materials (Compl. ¶13; ’675 Patent, col. 1:35-50).

  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-based "digital platform" that functions as a "virtual tool box" to solve this problem. It comprises several integrated software modules: a "solutions module" for configuring and viewing tool assemblies, a "machines module" for creating digital models of production machines, a "project module" for managing information, and a "workpiece features module" for specifying material attributes. This integrated system is designed to allow users to gather, analyze, and display technical and transactional data to find an appropriate industrial tool solution (’675 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-25). The architecture is illustrated in the patent's Figure 1A, which depicts the interrelation of the various modules and user access devices (’675 Patent, FIG. 1A).

  • Technical Importance: The technology aims to replace inefficient, manual processes reliant on paper catalogs with an integrated, data-driven digital environment, thereby improving the speed and accuracy of production planning in the manufacturing sector (’675 Patent, col. 1:51-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaration that all claims are invalid; the patent contains one independent claim, Claim 1.

  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:

    • A computer-based system for processing information associated with industrial tool solutions.
    • A digital platform with a processor programmed to execute several modules, including:
    • A "solutions module" for receiving tool configuration information and displaying graphical representations.
    • A "machines module" for receiving machine information and displaying a "digital replica" of each machine.
    • A "project module" for receiving and displaying project information combining tool and machine data.
    • A "workpiece features module" for processing parameters of a workpiece.
    • A "download function" for generating a 2D or 3D model of the tool solution and communicating it to an independent computer system.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

As this is a declaratory judgment action filed by the potential infringer, the technology at the center of the dispute is Plaintiff MachiningCloud's own "Novo" platform (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 21).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that MachiningCloud developed the Novo platform for Kennametal beginning under a 2011 agreement (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17).

  • The platform is described as a "sophisticated cloud-based digital commerce platform" that provides users the ability to electronically browse and select cutting tools, access data on tool compatibility, assemble virtual tool configurations, and purchase products (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17).

  • The complaint alleges that this platform "significantly advanced digital access to cutting tools, tool data, and product selling and ordering capabilities" compared to traditional methods like printed catalogs and phone orders (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17). The complaint further alleges that Kennametal built its own "Kennametal Platform" as an "unauthorized knockoff of Novo" and subsequently filed for the '675 Patent on that technology (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a traditional infringement analysis. Instead, as a declaratory judgment action, it presents a factual narrative arguing that the ’675 Patent is invalid and its inventorship is incorrect because the claimed invention is allegedly MachiningCloud's own technology, misappropriated by Kennametal. The core of this argument is that the technology described in the patent is the Novo platform, which Plaintiff claims to have invented and developed (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 25).

The complaint alleges that Kennametal's patent is based on "unlawful copying of MachiningCloud's confidential information" and that the named inventors on the patent, who were Kennametal employees, had access to this information through their work with MachiningCloud and the Novo platform (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26). As direct evidence of copying, the complaint alleges that Figure 1A of the ’675 Patent, a system architecture flowchart, is "substantially similar to the diagram that appears on page 19 of the parties' Agreement" (Compl. ¶26). This figure in the patent depicts the overall structure of the claimed system, including the solutions, machines, and project modules (’675 Patent, FIG. 1A). Plaintiff further alleges that the true inventors are four MachiningCloud employees and that MachiningCloud is the rightful owner of the technology (Compl. ¶25).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Inventorship and Ownership: The central dispute appears to be factual: Who conceived of the invention claimed in the ’675 Patent? The case will likely require evidence regarding the development of the Novo platform and the specific contributions, if any, of the named Kennametal inventors versus the alleged MachiningCloud inventors (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 34).

  • Validity (Anticipation/Obviousness): Plaintiff’s factual allegations raise the question of whether its own work on the Novo platform, if disclosed or in public use more than one year before the patent's filing date, could constitute invalidating prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or render the claims obvious under § 103 (Compl. ¶29).

  • Validity (Patentable Subject Matter): The complaint raises a potential challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101, suggesting that the patent claims "recite only conventional, abstract ideas—searching through catalogs to find appropriate machining tools—and automate them using a computer" (Compl. ¶23).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"digital replica of each machine"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the "machines module" limitation of Claim 1. The definition of "digital replica" will be important to determine the scope of the claim. A broad definition might cover a simple set of data fields describing a machine's parameters, while a narrow definition might require a detailed, functional 3D model. The construction could impact both validity (what the patent enables and describes) and whether the Novo platform meets this limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description refers generally to creating and configuring "digital replicas of their own production and industrial environments," which may suggest a focus on the data and environmental parameters rather than just a visual model (’675 Patent, col. 4:19-22).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification refers to "modeling how machines will interact with different possible solutions" and includes figures showing detailed user interfaces for inputting specific machine specifications, which could support a more structured and detailed data model as the "replica" (’675 Patent, col. 4:22-25; FIGS. 13-16).

"solutions module"

  • Context and Importance: This module is the core of the claimed platform. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will influence the analysis of patent eligibility under § 101 and obviousness under § 103. If construed broadly as a simple search-and-display function, it may support Plaintiff's argument that the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Compl. ¶23). If construed more narrowly to require specific analytical functions, it may bolster the patent's validity.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the module's function broadly as "receiving information associated with multiple configurations... and displaying graphical representations" associated with them (’675 Patent, Claim 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses that a "rules engine" may be provided to "execute one or more analysis algorithms which assess the suitability of the different parameters of a solution configuration (e.g., geometry, dimensions, part fit, mating conditions, etc.)" (’675 Patent, col. 4:65-5:5). This language may support an interpretation requiring more than a simple database lookup.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege patent infringement and therefore includes no claims for indirect or willful infringement.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of origination and inventorship: The case will likely turn on factual evidence establishing who conceived of the claimed system. Did the idea originate with the named Kennametal inventors, or does the evidence show, as alleged, that the invention was conceived by MachiningCloud employees and disclosed to Kennametal under their development agreement?

  • A second key issue will be contractual interpretation and ownership: The court will likely need to analyze the 2011 agreement between the parties to determine the ownership and confidentiality obligations surrounding the intellectual property developed for the Novo platform, which may be dispositive of the inventorship dispute.

  • A final question will be one of patentability: Independent of the inventorship dispute, the case raises the legal question of whether claiming a computer platform for selecting industrial tools is a patent-eligible application of an idea, or if it is an unpatentable abstract idea of automating a long-standing commercial practice, as Plaintiff suggests.